[This article from Jürgen Wagner was not written primarily for qoqa.de, but it served to correct some errata of a publication in the paper "Genealogie" 2005 p. 700 and it served for complements. So he doesn't refer to his last article in webmag 1 of qoqa.de. Please take into consideration this, if you believe, you cannot understand his annotations.]
A graphic minimal, but related to the content a very significant erratum and the sources related to the family v. Bora1 acquainted by Fischer/v. Stutterheim in AfF 2005 S. 251 et sqq. give me the motive to pick up the subject once again.
1. About the v. Bora from Sahla in the district of Weißenfels
In 'Genealogie' 2005 p. 700 the filiation line between Hans v. Bora from Sahla and Jhan v. Bora (F2) from Lippendorf was not printed by mistake. We have to hope, that this circumstance doesn't cause in the future lasting misunderstandings. Like in the related text is showed, the supposable father of Catherina v. Bora, Jhan v. Bora (F2) from Lippendorf we have to regard as the son of Hans v. Bora from Sahla, deceased probably 1482. Whose father was Friedrich v. Bora, who has got 1432 the 'Vorwerk' ( = farm) Sahla near Schkortleben in the district Weißenfels as fiefdom. The ancestry of these brothers isn't clear up to now.
If we bear in mind the facts about the family v. Bora from Steinlausigk in the district Bitterfeld notified by Fischer/v. Stutterheim, it seems not forbidden to cogitate about possible relations between the different lineages in the region north and northeast from Leipzig.
2. About the v. Bora from Steinlausigk in the district Bitterfeld
The news and sources about the family v.Bora from Steinlausigk2, notified in AfF 2005 p. 260 et sqq., allow us latterly for the first time the reconstruction of this stirps about several generations. Accordingly Melchior v. Bora major succeeded5 1445 his father together with his brother Nicolaus v. Bora, who was feoffed with him3, in the ownership of Steinlausigk und Pöplitz.4 In Nauendorf6 "8 ½ Hufen [ depending on the region 1 Hufe has between 10 and 50 acres] belongs to the heritage, „4 ½ Hofe daselbst“ and "2 Hufen" in Buckau.7 Melchior v. Bora major 1445 has to supply three knight horses.8
1465 Steinlausigk was transfered from Melchior v. Bora major to the son Melchior v. Bora.9, 10At the same time Hansen and Jhan von Bora were feoffed jointly ... in case that Melchior v. Bora would decease without legitimate heir.
Melchior v. Bora the younger married 1470 a Sophie from a not noted family11 and transfered to her as "Leibgedinge" [= thirds] Pöplitz and the possessions in Nauendorf and Buckau. 1471 he is mentioned as member of the men of the district Bitterfeld. 12
1501 Steinlausigk was transfered to the son Hans v. Bora,13 who is mentioned by document 152514, 152615 as well as for the last time 152816 and died before 1533 without a male heir. 17
Steinlausigk became property of Hans v.Taubenheim, whose family already 1514 had acquired the remainder, in the case that Hans v. Bora remained without a male heir.18
Even if thus appears secured, that the younger Hans v. Bora from Steinlausigk can not be the father of Catharina v. Bora (D10), so is to be asked nevertheless, in which kinsmenlike relationship he could have been to the probably coeval Hans/Jhan v.Bora from Lippendorf (F2) and to the probably one generation older brothers Wilhelm (F1) and Hans v.Bora, which acquired 1474 the 5-Hufen-manor in Löben.
Löben and Steinlausigk, Pöplitz as well as the adjacent Burgkemnitz are only some kilometers away, in the understanding of that age only a day's journey. For both localties Wittenberg was the political center. The revelation of kinsmanlike relationships between the here noted persons could perhaps explain more plausible as until now, why Catharina v.Bora (D10) as a child has visited firstly the convent school in Brehna, which is rather far away from Lippendorf and why she wasn't educated in the interjacent Leipzig.19
But the answer to these questions disagrees however, in spite of the rather clear statements about the succession of Steinlausigk and Pöplitz, that already the correlation of the aforementioned v.Bora from Steinlausdigk to the hitherto level of generations makes certain difficulties. It seems abolutely defensible to assign Hans v.Bora from Steinlausigk, deceased before 1445, to the XI. generation and according to this Hans v.Bora from Steinlausigk, deceased before 1533 to the XIV. generation. In effect this version gives the possibilty, that we could ascribe the Steinlausigk-lineage and the Sahla-lineage of the family v.Bora to Hans v.Bora from Steinlausigk, deceased before 1445, as common ancestor. But likewise it seems defensible, that we rank all members of the Steinlausigk-lineage as one generation younger. In this case it would remain the possibility of a hitherto unknown, potentially common ancestor of both lineages.
First of all the indexing of Hans v.Bora and Jhan v.Bora, mentioned 1465, when Melchior v.Bora major was feoffed, is problematical.20 It seems, that these three persons were not brothers, because the document let miss the insofar traditional phrase "brothers". But then the mention of these persons strengthens the guess, that between the Steinlausigk-lineage and the Sahla-lineage could be a relation, which is unknown up to now.
Especially the mention of a Jhan v.Bora focus our view on the supposable father of Catharina v.Bora (D10), who is called 1505 as Jhan v.Bora (D2).21
According to the areal conditions Hans v.Bora, who was feoffed 1465 together with his "relatives", could be both the one from Sahla and the Hans v.Bora, who was feoffed 1474 with Saalhausen.22
Against it the 1465 also feoffed concertedly Jhan v.Bora avoids up to now every localization or identification. According to the hitherto knowledges he might not be identical with the Jhan v.Bora (F2) from Lippendorf, firstly noted 1505, that's 40 years later, even if such an equating would be very enticing.23 Furthermore we have to presume for the 1465 feoffed condertedly Jhan v.Bora a year of birth circa 1440 or earlier, what would suspend him as father of the 1499 born Catharina v.Bora (D10).
However the time nearness of the sale of the half of the v.Bora property in Nauendorf and Buckau by Hans v.Bora (from Steinlausigk ?) in the year 149524 to the sale of Sahla before 149425 by the Jhan v. Bora(F2), at that time still called Hans v.Bora, is astounding.26 Should connections exist here?
3. About the v. Bora from Steinbach in the district Meißen
With the further data to the possession sequence of Steinbach, especially about the transfer to the family v.Alnpeck, Fischer/vStutterheim prove strongly, that the 1485 marrying Hans v.Bora from Steinbach can not have been the father of Catharina v.Bora (D10). Therefore we have only to complement the schema in "Genealogie" 2005 p.700 with the probable year of death (before 1533).
4. About the v. Bora from Löben and Brandis in the district Schweinitz
According to the hitherto knowledges Wilhelm v.Bora the younger was feoffed with Löben and Brandis in the year 1487,27 whereby an indication of source was missing so far. This uncertainty repairs the document communicated by Fischer/vStutterheim p. 263 Nr. 4 d from the year 1486, „Monday after Andree“ (i. e. 04. December 1486).28 The small difference of both time datas has no influence according to the interpretation of this fiefdom.
Differing from the speculation of Fischer/v. Stutterheims the lineage Löben/Brandis can't be considered for the pedigree of Catharina v.Bora.29
5. About the siblings of Catherina v. Bora
We have to regard the assumption of Fischer/v. Stutterheim as convincing, that we have to read the location "Moderwitz" in a text of Luther, dedicated to Hans v. Bora (his "Schwähervater"), as "Medewitzsch".30 But because this dedication can be written soonest 1525, when according to all guess of Luther his probable father-in-law Jhan v.Bora (F2) was deceased already, it must refer to Luther's brother-in-law Hans v.Bora (D8).
Against it the graphic schema about the siblings of Catharina v.Bora seems to be not fully clear.31
Because however this isn't the subject of the here discussed articles, it is to be done without a discussion in addition.
Independent from "Genealogie" 2005 p.673 sqq. also Fischer/vStutterheim exclude convincingly a family background of Catharina v.Bora from the lineages Hirschfeld, Steinbach and Steinlausigk.32
However they don't explore neither the lineage Sahla alone nor the question, if and which relations could exist between the v.Bora from Steinlausigk and the lineage Sahla.
Altogether, also in consideration of the sources acquainted by Fischer/v. Stutterheim, we can only state, that the lineage Sahla, from which Catharina v.Bora emanates without much doubt, we can trace back only till to the brothers Friedrich and Rambold v.Bora, which were feoffed 1438 with Sahla.
Furthermore the question, posed by Fischer/v. Stutterheim, if Hans v.Bora, mentioned firstly 1482 as in Lippendorf resident, is really the father of Catharina v. Bora (D10) and if we can regard him as identical with the 1505 mentioned Jhan v. Bora (F2),33 makes it desirable, that the publication at the same time of two independent articles about the family background of Catharina v.Bora become the cause for more researches.